We could say that the Sumerian cities of Nippur and Ur were the role models for
the emergent Old Babylonian culture (Van De Mieroop 1999 : 222 – 225 ). Nippur
during Ur III may be seen as the forerunner of the later concept of ‘Sumer and Akkad’
which provided the ideological frame that connected the early Babylonian city-states.
The god Enlil, for instance, not only kept his most important dwelling place and
that of his ancestors in his temple in Nippur, but he remained for centuries the
highest god of this ideological entity. To mention another example, during a later
phase of Babylonian rule the city god of Nippur, Ninurta-Ningirsu, was the one on
which Marduk, the highest god of the Babylonian pantheon, was modelled. Only
after centuries, at the time of Hammurabi’s dynasty, did the old Sumerian traditions
become less important.
Having asserted that both society and their ideology are subject to change, this
should not blind us to the fact that some values appear rather persistent. Thus, the
wealth of written documents and the art of writing was always held in high esteem
as a valuable skill of divine inspiration, as were the various arts and crafts. The
dominant position and the institution of the priest-king (ensi) or of the king was
never questioned. Only when a king acted immorally were such deeds criticised, but
not the office itself (George 2003 : Vol. I 543 : Gilgamesh I: 67 – 93 ; Vol. II 786 : 67
ff. and 84 ff.).
From the early historical period onwards we know that the institution of the ‘family’
formed the social order. The size of families, with its head, his wife, concubines,
children and slaves varied over time, but, as can be seen from the Codex Hammurabi,
they were perceived as the essential unit of organisation in towns and cities. They
were presided over by the householder. The terminus bı ̄tum (‘house’) is meant in a
strict, material sense but also in the meaning of ‘family’ or ‘clan’. It is also a key
concept on all levels of society and social structures which are couched in kinship
terms.
During all historical periods, the relationships between various gods and goddesses
were a reflection of the hierarchical, refined civic society and its traditional values.
The gods were divided into males and females and they were presided over by a figure
not unlike a paterfamilias, who is often referred to in royal terms, lugal‘king’ with
his ˇarratums ‘queen’ next to him in importance. Gods also have servants, sometimes
given the rank of ‘children’, or assigned the position of sukkallu, ‘messenger god’, just
as at the human level a sukkalluoccupied a high office at the court. A divine hierarchy
can be seen in the relationships of various city gods but also in lists of divine names.
The origin of these lists lies in the school-curriculum; they were conceived for teaching
cuneiform writing and the Sumerian and/or Akkadian language(s) (see Jon Taylor in
this volume). The first god lists date from the early third millennium when cuneiform
literature also developed. They refer to some extent to the organisation of the divine
world but not in an overtly theological way, as these lists emerged from within a
widespread literary tradition. The gods are arranged in an order that reflects the
mainstream religious thinking and cults. In the older periods, lists of gods were clearly
confined to local traditions, for on the local level deities could be assigned cult-symbols
which could be treated like deities themselves, and thus become included in the lists
among the gods.
Deities were assigned roles that stabilised the social fabric and the central power.
The king asked for their opinions, they accompanied him when he went to war. They
— Brigitte Groneberg —